Skip to main content

Curated research library of TV news clips regarding the NSA, its oversight and privacy issues, 2009-2014

Click "More / Share / Borrow" for each clip's source context and citation link. HTML5 compatible browser required

Primary curation & research: Robin Chin, Internet Archive TV News Researcher; using TV News Archive service.

Speakers

Angus King
Senator (I-Maine) Member of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
CSPAN 01/29/2014
King: There been suggestions from outside groups and we hear it all the time, that Section 215 really doesn’t produce anything useful. And we’ve had testimony about plots thwarted. In order for us to assess this difficult issue, which as Senator Rockefeller pointed out, the President has served to us back in our laps. On the one hand we want to weigh national security concerns and the importance and significance of the program against privacy rights and the concerns of the public having large amounts of telephonic data in the governments hands. Is the program effective? Does it make a difference? Is it an important tool? Is it just something nice to have?
Angus King
Representative (I-ME), House Intelligence Committee
CNNW 08/03/2014
King: Well, it's shocking and it's particularly shocking because if you go back to the clips in the spring, candy, you'll see john Brennan, the chief of the CIA, the director of the CIA, saying this was absurd and nobody should make these kind of irresponsible charges, and all of those kinds of things and now the CIA's own inspector-general has confirmed that they did just that, that they went into the computer system that was supposedly separated and within the control of the senate committee and essentially fished around. They even created false identities to pretend to be senate staff members going into the computers. It was, it's not good. I mean, the more important thing is the report itself, but this certainly undermines the kind of trust that you got to have,
Angus King
Representative (I-ME), House Intelligence Committee
CNNW 08/03/2014
King: When we do oversight of these agencies, which by the way, nobody else really watches, we're the only one watching these guys, we've got to be able to rely upon what they tell us. if we can't trust – Crowley: So is an apology from John Brennan enough? King: -- the information they're giving us, how do you do oversight? Crowley: Absolutely, so how do you do oversight? go ahead. King: Yeah, I don't think an apology is enough. And particularly because this had happened several times before. I think we've really got to have some serious discussions with John Brennan, find out what he knew about this when he was making those statements, what he knew about it at the time. I'm not calling for his resignation, but I'm pretty skeptical right now, because it really has undermined the trust between the committee,
Angus King
Representative (I-ME), House Intelligence Committee
CNNW 08/03/2014
King: And if you go back to the report itself, candy, one of the key findings of the report is they weren't honest with us. They weren't honest with the Congress, they weren't honest with the President, the Secretary of State. They were misrepresenting this program and what it did and how effective it was, and you know, this is serious stuff. Again, because we're the only people that are overseeing this outfit, and if we can't trust what they're telling us, we got to talk seriously about what our other options are. Crowley: Well, so what are your other options? Because you have a director that either didn't know what was going on in his agency as it relates to the hacking into the computer system or he didn't tell the truth. so at some point, I mean, as you know, a number of our colleagues, republican and democrat, have called for his resignation. What is the alternative here?
Angus King
Representative (I-ME), House Intelligence Committee
CNNW 08/03/2014
King: Well, I think the bigger question is how do we do our oversight more effectively, and we may have to embed people in the agency or have, create an office of oversight in the agency because it's just essential. The American people are relying on us to watch what's going on, and there's a bigger question, of course, which is relatively small committee with a small staff overseeing a $50 billion a year enterprise, the overall scope of the intelligence services, and I think it's something we in the committee are going to have to discuss seriously and we're going to have to have a really straightforward discussion with the White House.
Showing 1 through 5 of 5
Page 1